Canadian defense budget expected to rise to $20 billion.

[PhillTaj]

We have a new gov't in Canada, and rebuilding the military is one of their biggest priorities.

Combined, the previous government and the current government have ensured that the defense budget will be at least $20 billion Canadian by 2010- ensuring that our defense spending will be on par with Australia.
This week, Lockheed Martin will be presenting the C-130J to Ottawa and Boeing will pitch the C-17.

The new gov't supports the purchase of three C-17's, 16 Tactical lifters (the PM prefers the A400M) and 15 C-27J's.

Additionally, the new new conservative gov't has pledged (before election) new Main Battle Tanks, Chinook heavy lift choppers, three naval icebreakers, four new destroyers, two new replenishment ships, and a Strategic transport ship.

Additionally, a new Veterans Bill was introduced and passed today gives very enticing benefits for a career in the Canadian Forces.

However, the Conservatives wont announce their real intentions until the budget- they have promised at least 5.3 billion in increases, while the Defense Minister has hinted the increases may be significantly more substantial.

Note I do not have links for any of this- its just tid bits I've picked up over the last month.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

Well, lets hope that the new MBT's will be air transportable.

 

[ThunderBolt]

I seriously think that we need to get rid of the old school C8's last time i held one was only 3 years ago and man were they bulky. Maybe looking into H&K would be a nice change, their G36's are pretty sweat. Although C8's are more reliable than the M16's but still they are very much the same.

And yes we do need some new MBT's, but if you think about it we really don't need a huge army for peace keeping purposes i think the LAV's serve fine for now, maybe put that money towards other stuff...

 

[Supe]

And yes we do need some new MBT's, but if you think about it we really don't need a huge army for peace keeping purposes i think the LAV's serve fine for now, maybe put that money towards other stuff...

The Canadians have been doing a bit more of 'Peacemaking' rather than Peacekeeping, with clashes with Taliban in Kandahar.

Some cool images of the Canadian contingent to be found here.

 

[Pursuit Curve]

I seriously think that we need to get rid of the old school C8's last time i held one was only 3 years ago and man were they bulky. Maybe looking into H&K would be a nice change, their G36's are pretty sweat. Although C8's are more reliable than the M16's but still they are very much the same.

And yes we do need some new MBT's, but if you think about it we really don't need a huge army for peace keeping purposes i think the LAV's serve fine for now, maybe put that money towards other stuff...

I first of all want to say I am not a sales rep for the CV90 IFV, CV90/120 and the AMOS 120 mm twin automatic mortar system but man oh man what a system, check it out, also the C8 is good, and honestly in aghanistan even the FN wold be good considering that the terrain is open and the engagement ranges are considerable.

 

[Michael RVR]

i'm sure the CDF (?) will find a way to spend the money on something decent.

I don't really see CV90's happening though, didn't you guys just buy LAVIII's ?

 

[Analyst]

Why would we need MBTs? I cannot conceive a scenario where we would actually need to use such weapon systems, since it is unlikely we are going to use them in any large-scale offensive-warfare operations. Furthermore, if we go to war and we need to use MBTs, we will be there with other countries that have more effective or a larger number of tanks than us, such as the U-S. (I know, it sounds really opportunistic, but I beleive that our military is only effective when integrated with other armies, expecially NATO armies).

I think the next conflicts will be done in 3rd world countries and will involve much more peace-building / insrugency-repression than conventionnal warfare operations. Thus, I think the money would be more wisely spent on intelligence :
-Human Intelligence
-Electronic-warfare equipment
-Reconnaissance equipement and vehicules

I might be wrong, tough...

 

[Pursuit Curve]

I see your point in regards to the coventional use of MBT's tp combat other conventional forces. But recently the overwhelming direct fire support offered by MBT's in direct combat in counter insurgency operations has saved many infanteers lives. While LAV's are nice, nothing says we mean business than a firepower demonstration by MBT's. I know, we can always depend on other countries for armour, but for how long?

 

[Snayke]

That's a very nice budget. Hope you spend it on decent stuff, not like the 74 dollar screws that the US buy.

But seriously, this allows the CDF to expand right? What branches and areas within those branches would you want expanded? Any extra plane? Increased capacity in the army?

 

[Rich]

Good for them. Canada has a tremendous military history and the recent draw down of its forces has been shocking. I'd say the new DDs and IBs will be particularly helpful. And news on the DDs being considered?

 

[PhillTaj]

That's a very nice budget. Hope you spend it on decent stuff, not like the 74 dollar screws that the US buy.

But seriously, this allows the CDF to expand right? What branches and areas within those branches would you want expanded? Any extra plane? Increased capacity in the army?

The Tories wish to recruit 13,000 for the regular forces and another 10,000 for the reserves. Some have said it cant happen- but last fiscal year, with no money, and an outdated recruitment system, the CF managed to acheive 106% of its stated goal, over 5,000 men and women. So its possible. I believe the army will be recieving most of the new recruits, although the Atlantic fleet will acquire 1,000 personnel.

Really, however, its a minority gov't- the Tories cannot everything it wants to do with the anti-military Socialist NDP and BQ on their assess the whole time, but the centre Liberals will def support new troops, new helicoptors, and new airlift.

The Navy is in the worst shape. Its currently suffering from massive rust out and personnel strain from constant deployments in support of the war on terror. Additionally, we have lost the ability to produce advanced warships, and until our procurement process is reformed, we wont be seeing any new destroyers (currently, too advanced and expensive to produce quickly after the Saint John shipyards were left out to dry). - although an LPD and Replenishment ships are very attainable.
The Navy

 

[fral]

Okay, military budget aside..

The Tories wish to recruit 13,000 for the regular forces and another 10,000 for the reserves. Some have said it cant happen- but last fiscal year, with no money, and an outdated recruitment system, the CF managed to acheive 106% of its stated goal, over 5,000 men and women. So its possible. I believe the army will be recieving most of the new recruits, although the Atlantic fleet will acquire 1,000 personnel.

Really, however, its a minority gov't- the Tories cannot everything it wants to do with the anti-military Socialist NDP and BQ on their assess the whole time, but the centre Liberals will def support new troops, new helicoptors, and new airlift.

The Navy is in the worst shape. Its currently suffering from massive rust out and personnel strain from constant deployments in support of the war on terror. Additionally, we have lost the ability to produce advanced warships, and until our procurement process is reformed, we wont be seeing any new destroyers (currently, too advanced and expensive to produce quickly after the Saint John shipyards were left out to dry). - although an LPD and Replenishment ships are very attainable.
The Navy

Okay lets get a few goodies, let the army keep their current AFVs, but look at other nations AFVs. size comparison is the key, several small units like German's smaller weasels or UKs are perfect for upload to C17s or maybe a C171. For the navy, ST John shipyard can hump in the metal but remember it is the smaller companies that make the unit..EADS/CAE/Thales etc...when a FFH has engine (diesel ar turbine) the experts are used to fix it (French and German) all we need is the graving dock and muscle power....for the Naval air, we could have attempted to purchase seakings HAS 3 or 4 I can't remember the model. UK kept those units updated, so they got sold and money went towards their merlin, seaking has5/7 upgrades...remember it's all up to the people on the "purchasing" board.....the end user usually gets no say.....:coffee

 

[Analyst]

I agree with the importance of investing massivly into the navy. I con't say I know much about it, but investments seem well overdue. Especially for the aging naval helicopters.

I heard propositions about a Helicopter-carrier. Never heard of such ships. Could anyone tell me if they even exist and, if so, a general run-down of the specs, pictures, price-tag and any info you can share.
I think such ships could be very usefull for force-prejection and rapid troop deployment or extraction in the context of humanitarian missions.

Also I am wondering what the hell are our ships still doing in the Gulf? Primo, Afghanistan if landlocked and certainly didn't have much of a navy. Secundo, we were not at war with Iraq, thus we would not have engaged their ships or naval assets. Tiercio, we are not a war with Iran yet, and might very well not be in the near future. I know the official reason for this deployment was to provide support to the US navy, but I doubt it really needs our ships for picket-duty or patrol!
Would'nt it make more sense to bring them back to upgrade them or just to cut costs? I truly beleive Canada Navy cannot sustain a long-term deployment.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Why would we need MBTs? I cannot conceive a scenario where we would actually need to use such weapon systems, since it is unlikely we are going to use them in any large-scale offensive-warfare operations. Furthermore, if we go to war and we need to use MBTs, we will be there with other countries that have more effective or a larger number of tanks than us, such as the U-S. (I know, it sounds really opportunistic, but I beleive that our military is only effective when integrated with other armies, expecially NATO armies).

I think the next conflicts will be done in 3rd world countries and will involve much more peace-building / insrugency-repression than conventionnal warfare operations. Thus, I think the money would be more wisely spent on intelligence :
-Human Intelligence
-Electronic-warfare equipment
-Reconnaissance equipement and vehicules

I might be wrong, tough...

People have suggested ever since the tank was invented, that Army's would be better off without it. It's too heavy, too costly, too hard to deploy, too logistics heavy etc. Some even go so far as to say, that other vehicles provide greater capability. (CV-90120 v Abrams arguments for instance)???

The fact is tanks have proved time and time again they are the premier land warfare capability. No-one needs a tank UNTIL they get into a real stoush. Many people have suggested this for Australia too. "Why do we need tanks? we haven't even used them since Vietnam"... Well with the exception of some minor special forces, Naval gunfire support and F/-18 bombing operations in GW2, we haven't actually engaged in war fighting operations since Vietnam either. (Neither has Canada either, IIRC).

Peace-keeping and peace-making operations, often don't require heavy combat capabilities (including tanks, SPG's and "heavy IFV's). Wheeled motorised forces are acceptable at performing this role. However if you intend to be capable of deploying forces into "high intensity" warfare roles, they are simply and absolutely necessary.

With a $20 billion a year budget, a small purchase of tanks to equip a regiment or so (some would be dedicated for training/development/attrition purposes) with an MBT, is going to be a drop in the proverbial ocean. A regiment's worth, will allow you to deploy squadron sized battlegroups with your forces and rotate same nearly in-definitely or a brigade sized formation for shorter durations. Given the capability high quality MBT's provide is un-achievable by any other platform or combinations of platforms, is it really such a bad investment?

As to the helicopter carrier question, here's some links to existing vessels of this type:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/wasp/

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ocean/

http://www.deagel.com/pandora/mistral_pm00192001.aspx

and here's a link to Australia's project to acquire 2x vessels of this type:

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1104/topstories/story03.htm

 

[Big-E]

I think its great that CA is increasing her military spending, it shows they want to expand their roles in Joint Warfighting capability.

 

[Lancaster]

Canadian 2006 defence budget

Defence minister 'O' Connor was on today with 'Politics with Don Newman'( a news program), he didn't want talk details but the 13,000 regulars and 10,000 reservists will take about 5 years to fulfill. He also said in a months time that the cabinet would approve some of the defence priorities of 6 to 8 capital projects , money approved from other years, the arctic icebreaker ships in 5 year plan.

 

[contedicavour]

Wow, the Canadian Navy must be so happy ! Replacing the good old Trump destroyers with new builds would be a huge step forward in their naval capabilities
When should this materialize however ?

cheers

 

[Lancaster]

2006 defence budget, no mention of destroyers

Since the new government has minority of votes (seats), the budget needs a majority of votes to pass if not the government would fall, and a new election would be started. There is some support from opposition to give them the votes to pass the budget and will be in near future. Presently the Defense minister O’Connor has no details of the 6-8 projects but his first priority is the four airlift project (strategic, tactical, fixed wing SAR, helicopter), and later arctic icebreaker ships, no mention of destroyers, frigates upgrade, amphibious and support ships.
See below for statements made by Defense minister O’Connor.

1) http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=bd8e102a-25f6-48e5-8da2-99727a6a8715&k=86035

2) Valid until May 9th ,Defense minister O’Connor on radio, need Realplayer, go to Wednesday PM broadcast and click O’Connor is first on the broadcast.
http://www.cbc.ca/politics/

3) On Norad renewal and military equipment.
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/Gordon_Oconnor_May04.mp3

 

[Lancaster]

$8B military 'wish list'

Canadian defence minister O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list' that is being close to reality, will ask this week for government to approve. In purchasing four new C-17 Globemaster cargo jets, 17 tactical C-130J transports , 20 new heavy lift helicopters, 18 new search and rescue planes, replacement of 24 year old logistics trucks, three joint support ships. See attached.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b57feeea-de73-40be-976f-7076f9331301&k=88600

 

[PhillTaj]

Canadian defence minister O'Connor has $8B military 'wish list' that is being close to reality, will ask this week for government to approve. In purchasing four new C-17 Globemaster cargo jets, 17 tactical C-130J transports , 20 new heavy lift helicopters, 18 new search and rescue planes, replacement of 24 year old logistics trucks, three joint support ships. See attached.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b57feeea-de73-40be-976f-7076f9331301&k=88600

There is no way he'll be able to push that all through! Harper is far, far too concerned with winning the next election to approve a defense package that will end up costing over 14 billion. The NDP and Bloc will cry "right wing militaristic conspiracy' and the Fiberals will join the anti-military bandwagon.

Still, it'd be nice though...I think they should cancel JSS however. Too much ship for not enough capability.